set_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description offers no behavioral details beyond the bare action. Without annotations, it fails to disclose side effects, reversibility, required permissions, or what happens on cancellation or completion, which is critical for a status-changing tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, direct sentence without fluff, but it is under-specified, offering minimal value. It is not a tautology but lacks the structural detail that would make it truly useful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple mutation tool with two well-documented parameters, the description still lacks critical context such as the effects of different status codes, whether changes are permanent, or any side effects. The schema covers parameters but not the behavioral context, so the description is incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema fully documents both parameters with descriptions, including the meaning of status codes. The description itself adds no parameter information, so it relies entirely on schema coverage, which is complete, meriting a baseline score of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Change activation status' clearly indicates a mutation operation on activation status, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_status by implying a write operation, though it doesn't elaborate on the specifics of what changing status entails.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and sibling comparisons.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.